Closed trivikr closed 1 year ago
Latest commit: 2fa88c7fb6bd9837a21fd9f7376798ea5a116a71
Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.
Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.
Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR
Using --runInBand
does not help
https://github.com/trivikr/vitest-codemod/actions/runs/4195987142/jobs/7276320276
➤ YN0000: [@vitest-codemod/jest]: Process started
➤ YN0000: [@vitest-codemod/jest]: PASS src/__fixtures__/expect/toHaveProperty.input.js
➤ YN0000: [@vitest-codemod/jest]: PASS src/__fixtures__/returns/results.input.js
➤ YN0000: [@vitest-codemod/jest]: PASS src/__fixtures__/mock/mockReset.input.js
➤ YN0000: [@vitest-codemod/jest]: PASS src/__fixtures__/mock/spyOn.input.js
➤ YN0000: [@vitest-codemod/jest]: PASS src/__fixtures__/async/promises.input.js
➤ YN0000: [@vitest-codemod/jest]: PASS src/__fixtures__/snapshot/addSnapshotSerializer.input.js
➤ YN0000: [@vitest-codemod/jest]: Process exited (exit code 1), completed in 8s [5](https://github.com/trivikr/vitest-codemod/actions/runs/4195987142/jobs/7276320276#step:7:6)25ms
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs and link to relevant comments in this thread.
Issue
Fixes: https://github.com/trivikr/vitest-codemod/issues/129
Description
Run jest tests serially to check if GitHub CI fails
Using
--runInBand
has helped many folks in the past, like https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/8769#issuecomment-652486175Testing
CI